A-Pee article. Rest at link. Lots of good stuff re vaccines, Chuck Simmins! :-)
Malaria. Tuberculosis. Alzheimer's disease. AIDS. Pandemic flu. Genital herpes. Urinary tract infections. Grass allergies. Traveler's diarrhea. You name it, the pharmaceutical industry is working on a vaccine to prevent it. How about stupidity?
Many could be on the market in five years or less.
Contrast that with five years ago, when so many companies had abandoned the vaccine business that half the U.S. supply of flu shots was lost because of contamination at one of the two manufacturers left.
Vaccines are no longer a sleepy, low-profit niche in a booming drug industry. Today, they're starting to give ailing pharmaceutical makers a shot in the arm.
#1
Did I miss definitive proof that Alzheimer's is virally induced? I've googled some risk-factor assocation results with one of the herpes viruses, but nothing definitive.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/18/2009 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Stupidity, apparently, is either genetic in origin, or caused by the environment (long-term exposure to left-leaning "edumacashional" techniques, living in a heavily Democrat urban craphole, getting most of your information from the NY Slimes, etc.) Vaccines aren't the solution for those factors.
However, if the health care bills pass Congress, it is unlikely that any of the options proven to mitigate those factors (such as the experimental surgery to remove one's head from deep inside one's colon) will be covered.
#4
I'd be happy to pay out of pocket for a vaccine that prevented Alzheimer's. I'm sure the Gates Foundation would be pleased to pony up for a malaria vaccine to be distributed throughout Africa. I quite firmly believe Mr. Wife's company would have been equally pleased to cover malaria and traveller's diarrhea inoculations before sending him off to the interesting places in his passports; they covered yellow fever in 1986. He would have been more effective -- and his mother wouldn't have looked at me so accusingly when he came back from Egypt so very much thinner and faintly green about the gills. That was how he learnt never to eat meat or drink unbottled water in 3rd world countries, especially at the expensive hotel's restaurant on Friday. Except India. The only problem he had in India was amoebic dysentary, and it's assumed he got that by breathing the wrong particle of dust.
#7
Everything is airborne in India, Jame, as far as I can tell. The wonder is he didn't come down with something even more interesting. It's also possible I was misinformed -- Mr. Wife's colleagues called me up every day he was in the hospital to lie most comfortingly about his condition until the day they sent him home. It was only late he let slip about the palm-sized insects climbing up the walls of his room and the necessity that his colleagues purchase needles and medicines at reputable outside pharmacies lest he get the watered down stuff and the floor sharps.
A Bernalillo County Sheriff's deputy escorting Vice President Joe Biden's motorcade was hit this afternoon at Gibson and Carlisle.
Police say a woman drove around two police units blocking the intersection and hit a car driven by a sergeant with BCSO. OK, maybe there are two idiots involved in this story.
No injuries or arrests have been reported, but the sergeant has been taken to Presbyterian Hospital for evaluation.
A sheriff's spokeswoman would not say whether the vice president had already gone through the area at the time of the accident.
Its hard to figure out exactly where John Marcotte is coming from.
Here is what is clear: he took a logical idea, developed a cause around it, established a website, created a firestorm of support and just got authorization from the Secretary of State in California to move forward in getting signatures to put his cause on the ballot next November.
His cause? Eliminating the right to divorce in the state of California, called the California Protection of Marriage Act 2010.
In earlier interviews Marcotte has said a divorce ban is the next logical step after Proposition 8 to protect the sanctity of marriage. He believes if people supported Prop 8 but not this measure, they are hypocrites.
His website, rescuemarriage.org, appears on one hand to be very supportive of the mindsets behind Proposition 8; but if you read closely you may notice the writers tongue planted firmly in his cheek while he drafted each of the essays on the website. Whats more comical are the comments on each essay. They go all the way left and all the way to the right, as people shift in their seats trying to figure out exactly where Marcotte is coming from while they feign support of a cause they dont quite truly understand.
A Facebook fan page was set up on September 1st and it already has 6,588 fans. Hes sold hundreds of shirts that say You said till death do us part. Youre not dead yet!" and has been booked on both left and right leaning shows in an attempt to clarify his position. He is often questioned regarding his seriousness of the matter. The Facebook page says the group is protecting traditional marriage by banning divorce.
In a recent interview, Marcotte was quoted as saying People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
But is Marcotte anti-gay? Anti-anti-gay? Everything about him, his comments, his cause, his social networking - is completely ambiguous. Personally, I think he wants it that way to show how ridiculous we all are.
A rally is planned at noon on November 14 at Cesar Chavez Plaza (J Street and 10th) in Sacramento, to launch the now official, state-sanctioned petition.
The group must get 700,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the 2010 ballot. The proposed act would amend the states constitution, to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced. They could, however, still seek annulment (if they qualify).
The measure is widely supported by proponents of gay marriage, to make a point that those who argued for Proposition 8 last year may not in fact, want their own rights taken away in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.
The 2010 California Protection of Marriage Acts Facebook page is offering ride-shares to the capitol area for the November 14th rally, so people can attend from all over the state in order to meet like-minded folk. It might be interesting to see just who these like-minded folk might be.
a) scores about 65% below proficiency--and keep in mind that the "proficiency" bar is set extremely low in CA-- in language arts and about 75% below proficiency in math (and close to 90% below proficiency in high school science and advanced math)
b) has seen its share of the total CA public school enrollment DOUBLE during the last 20 years, ie the period when CA schools collapsed and slid from best in the nation to 49th
c) now comprises 50% of CA students overall and ca. 65% in Los Angeles
And then ask yourself one simple question: why are we doing this to ourselves? For what social benefit?
#3
Gets even worse, Gorb. Per the San Jose Unified School District's supe, at least one-third of the hispanic illegals and their parents cannot read or write in English or Spanish.
#5
He believes if people supported Prop 8 but not this measure, they are hypocrites.
There is no hypocrisy in the attainment of power. Power is self justifying. Just ask any special interest group.
Actually, what's at work is democracy in that the majority, finally in history, get to define their culture, not minorities, be they elites or cults.
The scorched earth approach would be to do away with all state recognition of marriage as an instrument of imposing obligations on any third party. Substitute contract binding the parties, but no one else. The state simply acts as arbiter of any dispute and protector of any procreation that is not of adult age to protect their own interests.
#8
It seems the longer that Hispanic Children stay in state schools the lower their result
Indeed. The link above is for ALL hispanic students in the CA public schools-- not just recent immigrant hispanics, or illegal immigrant hispanics, or economically-disadvantaged hispanics.
It's obvious from the data that this demographic factor explains probably 80% or more of the collapse in CA public school performance in recent years. And yet the issue isn't even discussed, let alone addressed with honesty.
#9
Could be they're trying to confuse Kaliphornia voters who will most likely see another measure on next year's ballot that would repeal Proposition 8, which itself was only passed last year. They don't waste any time, do they? But just imagine all those gays stuck in marriages in a state where divorce is illegal and the only way out is to murder your "partner".
Interesting take on the afghan war as a long-standing civil war/(post-)tribal feud, sobering piece re GB's prospect there, as well as the West's, though, of course, YMMV; see also : Fighting talk The duplicitous British
Actually, he goes further, bringing it right up-to-date, whereas I am still plodding laboriously through the narrative, having only reached 1947 and the period just before the partition of India.
With what we have both put together, Booker is able to argue that "our armed intervention in that unhappy country is doomed", and I could not begin to disagree. He takes the line from the blog, telling us that Afghanistan has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, between two tribal groups of Pashtuns (formerly known as Pathans).
On one side, he tells us, are the Durranis most of the settled population, farmers, traders, the professional middle class. On the other are the Ghilzai, traditionally nomadic, fiercely fundamentalist in religion, whose tribal homelands stretch across into Pakistan as far as Kashmir.
To DOTR readers, the narrative will be quite familiar, until we get up to the Soviet invasion in 1979, after years of Durrani rule, which Booker notes was to support a revolutionary Ghilzai government. I haven't researched that period fully yet, but he remarks how the eventual outcome was to lead to the dominance of the Ghilzai-run Taleban, toppled by our 2001 invasion when we again imposed Durrani rule.
As so often before, writes Booker, the Ghilzai have seen their country hijacked by a Durrani regime, supported by a largely Tajik army and by hated outsiders from the West.
One reason, therefore, why we find it so hard to win "hearts and minds" in Helmand is that we are up against a sullenly resentful population, fired by a timeless hatred and able to call on unlimited support, in men and materiel, from their Ghilzai brothers across the border in Pakistan (with the support of the Waziris and other tribes).
The situation is, of course, far more complex than that (there is only so much Booker can cram into his piece). There are many other factors which contribute to the current situation, but even the Islamic fanaticism of the Taliban is not new, or indeed the breakdown of some of the tribal structures, which has been an active goal of successive Afghan rulers since the 1880s, when Abdur Rhaman Khan first embarked on a programme of breaking the power of the tribes.
But whatever the layers of complications, though, at its very heart the Afghan conflict remains a tribal contest.
Thus, while in towns such as Sangin and Garmsir are there islands of Durrani, willing to support the Durrani government in distant Kabul, no sooner have our forces "secured" a village from the Taliban than their fighters re-emerge from the surrounding countryside to reclaim it for the Ghilzai cause.
Writes Booker, without recognising this, and that what the Ghilzai really want is an independent "Pashtunistan" stretching across the border, we shall never properly understand why, like so many foreigners who have become embroiled in Afghanistan before, we have stumbled into a war we can never hope to win.
Left there, Booker's piece ends up on a pessimistic note, from which the obvious conclusion can be drawn. But it has to be said that, for short periods in the history of Afghanistan, the tribes have been suppressed, although with a degree of ferocity that current Western mores would never allow. It is not that it cannot be done, therefore. More like, it cannot be done by Western military forces.
As long as we remain there, it thus seems, we will be the "piggy-in-the-middle" of an unresolvable tribal war. If we have an effect, it is to unite otherwise disparate tribes against a common enemy.
Should we leave, however, history tells us that the country will degenerate into a vicious civil-war, but that would not necessarily lead to another Taliban take-over. But what would emerge is anyone's guess. Traditionally in the Raj days our role has been to pick a winner, supply him with guns and money and let him get on with it, closing our eyes to the mayhem that results.
That is the reality of Afghanistan. But there is another reality: democracy has absolutely no place in the middle of a tribal war. As a system of government, it is entirely inappropriate, a society split on tribal (and ethnic) lines preventing the emergence of a demos, the very essence of a democratic system.
Eventually, we will recognise this when the patience of our own people wears out and we refuse to accept the continual drain of our blood and treasure. We will then walk out, as we did in 1947, and leave them to it. The result will not be pretty, and could possibly drag the whole region down into a nuclear conflagration, which is one of the reasons why a clean break seems impossible.
From there, it seems that we have got the whole problem upside down. In order to prevent regional instability, we are told, we must maintain a presence in Afghanistan. But we have got to the stage where our presence in Afghanistan is exacerbating the regional instability, possibly to the extent that the cure is worse than the disease.
Logic suggests that we should seek to broker a regional solution to the broader regional problems, and then revert to the only policy for Afghanistan that has worked for the last 300 years to empower one tribe to suppress the others, and let them get on with it, encapsulating the boil, rather than seeking to lance it.
In a sense, that is what the "Afghanisation" policy is really all about building up the Afghan security forces - but the one thing missing is a strong leader. Karzai has demonstrated neither the will nor the capability to deal with the problem, and there is no indication that he ever will. In traditional Afghan politics, weak leaders are either assassinated or deposed, a new leader then emerging from a period of civil war.
By interposing our own requirements for a "democratic" leader, we have interrupted that process, but we have not abolished it. Hoist with our own petard, we are now locked into that unenviable role of "piggy-in-the-middle", saddled with Karzai for an indeterminate period.
There is, however, always our traditional escape route an engineered coup d'état, opening the way for the leader of our choice. That, in the past, has not worked so well for the Americans. It certainly did not work in Vietnam and it is difficult to achieve in the glare of modern media scrutiny.
Short of that, though, Booker is right. We will lose. Our only real choice is whether sooner - or later, when we have the fig leaf of a Afghan army in place. There will be bloodshed either way, but the longer we leave it the bigger will be the butchers' bill for our own troops.
#1
Well - it is a British author and article, but the US is only 50+/- years from the living memory of military and adversary who did just what this article says cannot and has not been done.
Insert Apache, Sioux, Nez Perce, Shoshone and so forth in the appropriate places, and the description pretty neatly matches.
Still, it seems the Indians, Persians and Chinese would have closer interests at stake than we do.
In the past few days, the White House has made it clear that the president wants specific exit strategies for all his Afghan war options. That brought to mind the advice almost a century ago of an American geopolitician describing the only exit strategy worth considering:
♪♫ Over there, over there
Send the word, send the word,
Over there
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming every
where
So prepare,
Say a prayer
Send the word,
Send the word to beware
We'll be over, we're coming over.
And we won't be back till it's
over over there! ♪♫
The geopolitician in question, of course, was that great Irish-American, Tin Pan Alley's own George M. Cohan. And by quoting his lyrics to World War I's most popular song, I don't mean to be frivolous. But millions of young men were prepared to risk their lives - to not come back "till it's over over there" - because they were called to fight for something our nation considered vital. Those farm boys didn't know about foreign policy, but they trusted their parents and their leaders not to send them off for no good reason.
Hearing the president's request for exit strategies at the beginning of what would be "his" Afghan war - and thinking of our young troops, 18, 19, 20, 21 years old who have volunteered to risk their lives for America - how on God's good Earth can we ask those wonderful kids to risk dying for an exit strategy?
I have heard from a few of them, and they are game to make a fight of it if their country believes it's necessary. Of course they will obey all their orders and commands. But what a cold and heartless command: to send our generation's "Yanks" off to risk their young lives just to prepare to retreat (i.e. exit).
The administration is making its intentions quite clear. Over the weekend, top Obama administration officials went on television to "lower the bar for success" in Afghanistan, stressing that the administration is seeking an exit strategy and holds "no illusions" (Fox News).
"We have no illusions. This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state and do all of these wonderful things," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told ABC's "This Week."
On another Sunday show, the president's top political adviser, David Axelrod, explained that "obviously we cannot make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing our troops home at some point."
We have to watch our pennies, too. As the Saturday New York Times reported: "While President Obama's decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say."
Even the great Cohan could not write a song that would give life and passion and hope to such flatulent, cynical comments.
Three months ago in this space, I wrote: "President Obama is on the cusp of a fateful policy decision. He has argued consistently that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to deny al Qaeda a base of terrorist operations and to stop the Taliban insurrection from destabilizing nuclear Pakistan. ... [But] even the optimists now believe that a successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan (and needed as much in Pakistan) will require several years of sustained commitment, with substantially more men and materiel. ... To have a reasonable chance at success, Mr. Obama will have to sustain the effort for years, which will require him to be at least as determined and stubborn on behalf of this war as former President George W. Bush was in fighting the Iraq war."
Now, three agonizing, rationalizing, equivocating, twisting, turning months of White House squirming later - even a blind man could see that this president, and this White House staff, do not have the stomach to continue the war in Afghanistan. They are trying to avoid it. They don't want to fight it. They think they have great things to do here at home. They know they don't have anything they want to do in Afghanistan.
If the Taliban and al Qaeda retake Afghanistan, the world (and America) will have hell to pay for the consequences. But this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan. So they shouldn't try. The price will be high for whatever foreign policy failures we will endure in the next three years. Let's not add to that price the pointless murder of our finest young troops in a war their leader does not believe in.
#1
ION WMF > AIMLESS WAR? AND WORLD'S OLDEST INSURGENCY: THE NEW PEOPLE'S ARMY IN THE PHILIPPINES CONTINUES TO FIGHT AFTER SIXTY YEARS. THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE NPA AND THE MANILA GOVT. HAS COST THE LIVES OF NEARLY FOUR MILYUHN PERSONS [Filipinos]. THIRTY PERCENT OF FILIPINOS LIVE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE [2003 datums].
HUGO CHAVEZ'S belligerent rhetoric trades at a substantial discount. So when on November 8th he announced during his weekly television show that Venezuela's army should "prepare for war", apparently with Colombia, this was greeted with concern but not panic. Sure enough, three days later Mr Chavez was denying his message was meant as a threat. But his verbal salvoes aggravate the mistrust between the two neighbours.
The latest batch was triggered by an agreement signed on October 30th under which Colombia has granted the United States access to up to seven military bases. Both governments insist that this poses no threat to other countries. It formalises existing arrangements under which the United States helps Colombia combat drug traffickers and guerrillas; Colombia will now also host anti-drug surveillance flights over the Pacific by American planes previously operating from Ecuador.
Mr Chavez claims that the agreement is an "open aggression" aimed at ousting him from power. Any attack by the United States or Colombia would trigger "a 100-year war", he said. When news of the accord broke in July, he responded by freezing cross-border trade (which was flourishing). That has thrown many people out of work in Venezuela's border state of Tachira, aggravating a climate of lawlessness there. Recent weeks have seen the kidnap and murder of 11 men, eight of them Colombian, the murder of two Venezuelan national guardsmen; deportations of undocumented migrants and the arrest on both sides of alleged spies.
In early November Mr Chavez ordered the deployment of 15,000 national-guard troops to border areas. It is not clear how many have arrived. Some seem to have gone to the southern border with Brazil, to deal with illegal mining. Venezuela lacks the trucks and planes needed to move large numbers of troops quickly.
In any conventional war, Colombia's army would surely win. It has been hardened by American aid and training and years of action against the FARC guerrillas. Venezuela's only hope would be a quick air strike, using recently acquired Russian Sukhoi jets. It has doubtless occurred to Colombian officials that the presence of Americans at their main air bases might cause Mr Chavez to think twice before launching such a strike.
According to Alberto Müller, a retired general and former leader of Mr Chavez's United Socia1ist Party, Venezuela is waging "a different kind of war", for public opinion rather than territory. If so, Mr Chavez seems to be losing it. In a recent survey by Datanalisis, a polling firm, 80% of respondents opposed a war with Colombia, and a big majority opposed trade sanctions. To complicate matters further, several million Colombians live in Venezuela. Across the border, Mr Chavez's constant threats seem to have caused Colombians to rally round their president, Alvaro Uribe, who may run for a third term in May.
Venezuela will hold a legislative election in September. Mr Chavez appears to be seeking an external enemy to distract attention from mounting problems, ranging from regular electricity blackouts to inflation and public-spending cuts.
Colombia this week said it would complain to the Organisation of American States and the United Nations about Mr Chavez's unneighbourly behaviour. Brazil has offered mediation; so might Spain. That could be useful. After all, those who constantly talk of war sometimes trigger it, accidentally or on purpose.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nothing like a good Chavez breakfast to start a bombastic day:
Cardinal Rodriguez says Manuel Zelaya was removed from power constitutionally. By Mary Anastasia O'Grady
It's a good 30 minutes by car from here to the Catholic retreat center where I traveled to meet Honduran Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga last week. The brick compound sits just off a dirt road on a hillside in a forest of tall pines. When I arrived the sun was going down, and in the stillness of the early evening the world seemed serene.
Yet for the cardinal, life lately has been anything but peaceful. Ever since then-president Manuel Zelaya began preparing to overthrow the constitution earlier this year so that he could remain in power past his term limit, Honduras has been in turmoil. And the Catholic Church has found itself necessarily involved.
The hard left has argued that the decision to depose Mr. Zelaya was driven by elite antipathy toward his activism on behalf of the poor. But the cardinal, who is an outspoken advocate for the downtrodden and a longtime critic of Central American income disparities, does not share that view. He has supported the removal of Mr. Zelaya. I wanted to hear more about that.
Honduras's Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga opposes Manuel Zelaya's return to power.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When I saw the headline, I thought it was going to be a hit piece on the Catholic Cardinals "interfering" with the political process by opposing abortion in the health care bill.
Of course, just because they are ordained does not mean they are no longer citizens and thus lose their right to petition the government. Although some liberals would like to see that happen.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/18/2009 20:27 Comments ||
Top||
If Israel's detractors can associate the Jewish movement for self-determination with the Apartheid South African regime, they will have done lasting and maybe irreparable damage. Yet the comparison of Israel to South Africa under white supremist rule has been utterly rejected by those with intimate understanding of the old Apartheid system.
Israel is a multi-racial and multi-colored society, and the Arab minority actively participates in the political process. There are Arab parliamentarians, Arab judges including on the Supreme Court, Arab cabinet ministers, Arab heads of hospital departments, Arab university professors, Arab diplomats in the Foreign Service, and very senior Arab police and army officers. Incitement to racism in Israel is a criminal offence, as is discrimination on the basis of race or religion.
The accusation is made that the very fact that Israel is considered a Jewish state proves an "Apartheid-like" situation. Yet the accusers have not a word of criticism against the tens of liberal democratic states that have Christian crosses incorporated in their flags, nor against the Muslim states with the half crescent symbol of Islam.
For a Western state, with Jewish and Muslim minorities, to have Christmas as a national holiday is permissible, but for Israel to celebrate Passover as a national holiday is somehow racist. For various Arab states to denote themselves as Arab Republics is not objectionable.
Zionism is perhaps the only national movement that has received explicit support and endorsement both from the League of Nations and from the United Nations. It was the League of Nations that approved the mandate for Palestine with its ringing endorsement of "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
The real goal behind the Apartheid campaign is the denial of the legitimacy of the State of Israel and the determination that the only status the Jewish population in Israel can hope for is that of a "protected" ethnic minority in an Arab Palestinian state.
#1
The isrealis are NOT lilly white when it comes to bigotry and discrimination. having lived in Egypt and Isreal I witnessed first hand the extreme prejudice that envelopes the region on both sides of the isle
Compred to their neighbours they certainly are. It has ever been a favorite tactic of the fascist/nazi/communist syspehisers to scream to high heavens for minor sins perpetrated by the good guys inn order to divert attention from what their friensds were doing.
Let's think in how much those peopele havbe said or done about:
1) Discrimination and violence against Copts in Egypts
2) Violence agsint Christians by The Palestinians
3) Saudi Zrabia using white phosphorous on Shias.
4) Genocide of Balck populations in Sudan
Did you notice that the only people who deserve these oghanization's sympathies are those who want to exterminate Jews?
Very true. Half of them came from Arab countries, so their skin is the same colour as their former Arab neighbors, and a significant minority come from Africa -- like the Falashas of Ethiopia, who look just like their former neighbors.
#8
The moral equivalence is sickening. I will be willing to look critically at the Israelis once the Paleos realize blowing up civilian buses is abhorrent. And one or two nutcases don't count.
#9
The Israeli's may not be lilly white but they don't condone and applaud the deliberate targeting and cold blooded murder of the innocent like Syria and Iran do as a matter of National Policy via the Hezbollah and Hamas.
They do not "Celebrate death" nor practice Human Sacrifices (i.e. Homicide Bombing) to their pathetic little god (who can't take even cartoons...) like the Islamists do.
#10
Hmmmmm one would think if you lived in "Isreal" you might know how to spell it....twice
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/18/2009 19:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Oddly enough, Israelis are human, too. It has already been said that they do not engage in the morally reprehensible behaviour of the Palestinians or the other Arabs and this is very true.
They did not steal the homes of their neighbors en masse. Their neighbors decided to clear out so that the Arab nations could kill EVERY ISRAELI and then let the Palestinians come back.
Oh, and the Arabs are not particularly colored. In fact, they call themselves white and 'Caucasians' are yellow (this from a Lebanese man I met).
[Asharq al-Aswat] I always recommend reading Hassan Nasrallah's speeches rather than listening to them, because reading one of his speeches unemotionally allows one to read between the lines. The latest speech given by the Hezbollah leader was as if he were trying to compete with Mr. Amr Musa for the position of Secretary-General of the Arab League. In this speech, Nasrallah spoke about Lebanon, the Arabs, and the world [at large], and offered his opinions and his congratulations on initiatives that have been taken. The most important thing highlighted in this speech was his statements about the elections, the peace process, and Turkey, and in the process revealing [several] important issues.
Nasrallah said that following the election of [US President] Obama "Many people waited and gambled and kept watch, saying wait, for there will be big changes" but that "the reality of this mirage was soon revealed." Nasrallah then quoted a Palestinian negotiator who had told him that we have negotiated for 18 years and not achieved anything. Nasrallah said "the number 18 is an interesting number; [there have been] 18 years of negotiations whose only results are failure, frustration, loss, humiliation, and occupation. In contrast 18 years of resistance in Lebanon has resulted in the liberation of Beirut and its suburbs, the [Lebanese] mountains, Bekaa Valley, and southern Lebanon from Zionist occupation...and without any favors from anybody in this world." The crux of the speech can be seen when Nasrallah said "we are with 'Sunni' Turkey if it wants to defend Palestine, the Gaza Strip, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque."
This means that Nasrallah is saying that Turkey must abide by Hezbollah's positions or Hezbollah will cut its ties with the country, and this brings us neatly to our next point; Nasrallah praised the speech given by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Turkey about the resistance. However despite this, President Bashar al-Assad told a Turkish newspaper that he advised the Turks on the necessity of maintaining good relations with Israel and Europe in order to assist Syria with the peace process and the restoration of the Golan Heights.
How can we assess this?
This is not to mention Nasrallah's disdain of the peace process, and France now becoming involved in the Syrian -- Israeli peace [negotiations]. In fact, the Syrian President announced a few weeks ago that we are not far away from seeing Israel becoming [directly] involved in the [Syrian -- Israeli] peace negotiations, while just two days ago an Israeli official spoke of his country's desire to start negotiations for peace with Damascus without setting any preconditions.
Does Nasrallah's statement about Turkey also apply to Syria?
Is it reasonable for Nasrallah to disparage the peace process, and all those who want to liberate their lands without taking up arms, and then come out and commend Syria and its president?
Therefore due to the unconvincing nature of his speech, it is clear that when Nasrallah praised Syria and its president he was merely trying to disguise [his true feelings] or attempting to be clever. Nasrallah's statements about his joy at the Saudi Arabian -- Syrian rapprochement are therefore similarly doubtful, especially after he called for Saudi Arabian -- Iranian rapprochement. If Nasrallah meant what he said about the Arab world and [the importance of] good relations, why did he not talk about the necessity of Syrian -- Egyptian rapprochement, for example?
Nasrallah's speech, despite his [attempt] to be clever, revealed many important things, such as the difference in the positions of Hezbollah and Damascus today.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Nasrallah need Syrian help to persuade the mullahs to increase their subsidy - hence the suckup
also, if the image is real, Nasrallah needs to cut back on the snackfood
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/18/2009 2:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Where's Totto when you really need to the curtain to be pulled back?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Biden Escort Involved in Wreck
[Asharq al-Aswat] I always recommend reading Hassan Nasrallah's speeches rather than listening to them, because reading one of his speeches unemotionally allows one to read between the lines. The latest speech given by the Hezbollah leader was as if he were trying to compete with Mr. Amr Musa for the position of Secretary-General of the Arab League. In this speech, Nasrallah spoke about Lebanon, the Arabs, and the world [at large], and offered his opinions and his congratulations on initiatives that have been taken. The most important thing highlighted in this speech was his statements about the elections, the peace process, and Turkey, and in the process revealing [several] important issues. 
